Comments for Public Law Bloghttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc
Public Law and Policy Research UnitWed, 27 Aug 2014 23:23:18 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2Comment on UPCOMING EVENT: Troubled Waters: Constitutional issues in water regulation in the Murray Darling Basin by **RESCHEDULED** UPCOMING EVENT: Troubled Waters: Constitutional issues in water regulation in the Murray Darling Basin - Public Law and Policy Research Unithttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2014/08/22/upcoming-event-troubled-waters-constitutional-issues-in-water-regulation-in-the-murray-darling-basin/comment-page-1/#comment-295
Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:23:18 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=934#comment-295[…] The updated details for the event can be accessed here. […]
]]>Comment on Is Circumcision a Crime? A critique of the legal regulation of genital cutting in Germany and Australia by Reconsidering Male Circumcisionhttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/08/14/is-circumcision-a-crime-a-critique-of-the-legal-regulation-of-genital-cutting-in-germany-and-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-288
Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:00:48 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=205#comment-288[…] Today, Cornelia Koch and Anne Hewitt from the Adelaide Law School will present a public seminar on the regulation of circumcision in Australia and Germany. The discussion is informed by a recent decision of a German Court that the circumcision of a young Muslim boy constituted a criminal offence. The issue involves delicate questions about the right to religious freedom and the right to bodily integrity of young children. Full details on the event can be accessed here. […]
]]>Comment on The High Court’s New Spectacles: Re-envisioning Executive Power after Williams v Commonwealth by Same-sex marriage in the Stateshttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/07/26/the-high-courts-new-spectacles-re-envisioning-executive-power-after-williams-v-commonwealth/comment-page-1/#comment-264
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:08:19 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=182#comment-264[…] Greens leader Christine Milne has asked for a pledge from the Commonwealth government that if Tasmania were to pass the legislation, the Commonwealth would not challenge it. If the Commonwealth did not challenge the law, that would not necessarily guarantee that the legislation would be free from challenge. Usually, to bring a constitutional challenge a person has to have standing, that is, a real interest in the dispute. It may be difficult to see how a non-Commonwealth party could argue they had this interest. A person or organisation could seek the fiat of the Commonwealth Attorney-General and bring a relator action. This simply means that the Commonwealth bestows on that person or organisation the Commonwealth’s standing to bring the dispute. Another alternative is that the Court may put questions of standing ‘to one side’ provided the Commonwealth intervened in the dispute in support of the plaintiffs so as to provide a contradictor with standing. This is what happened in the recent Williams litigation where the National School Chaplaincy Program was challenged. (See more analysis on the High Court’s approach to standing in Williams here). […]
]]>Comment on Is the Circumcision of a Young Boy a Crime? Yes, According to a German Court by Replying to a critic: Can religious circumcision of minors be morally justified? | Practical Ethicshttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/06/29/is-the-circumcision-of-a-young-boy-a-crime-yes-according-to-a-german-court/comment-page-1/#comment-256
Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:14:58 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=160#comment-256[…] Cornelia Koch: Is the circumcision of a young boy a crime? Yes, according to a German court […]
]]>Comment on Is the Circumcision of a Young Boy a Crime? Yes, According to a German Court by “Religion” is no excuse for mutilating your baby’s penis | Practical Ethicshttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/06/29/is-the-circumcision-of-a-young-boy-a-crime-yes-according-to-a-german-court/comment-page-1/#comment-255
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:43:52 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=160#comment-255[…] Cornelia Koch: Is the circumcision of a young boy a crime? Yes, according to a German court […]
]]>Comment on Trip to Canberra: Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 and Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012 by Why extend the Judicial Complaints Process to Non-judicial Officers?https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/05/15/trip-to-canberra-courts-legislation-amendment-judicial-complaints-bill-2012-and-judicial-misbehaviour-and-incapacity-parliamentary-commissions-bill-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-137
Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:05:21 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=99#comment-137[…] The Bills establish two separate systems. The Parliamentary Commissions Bill allows for the Parliament to establish a parliamentary commission to investigate allegations of misbehavior or incapacity against a judge and recommend back to the Parliament whether evidence exists which may be capable of being regarded by the Parliament as misbehaviour or incapacity. The Judicial Complaints Bill formalises the role of the head of the court (the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Chief Judge of the Family Court and the Chief Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court), giving each the power to ‘handle’ complaints made about the performance by another judge in his or her judicial or official duties. (The Bills are currently before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, you can read about the Adelaide Law School’s submission to the Committee on some earlier blogs here and here). […]
]]>Comment on Scholars support Commonwealth’s attempts to bring accountability and transparency to judicial conduct by Why extend the Judicial Complaints Process to Non-judicial Officers?https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/04/30/scholars-support-commonwealths-attempts-to-bring-accountability-and-transparency-to-judicial-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-136
Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:50:42 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=79#comment-136[…] you can read about the Adelaide Law School’s submission to the Committee on some earlier blogs here and […]
]]>Comment on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in our Constitution: Three Perspectives by a1178428https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/05/10/recognising-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-in-our-constitution-three-perspectives/comment-page-1/#comment-105
Mon, 21 May 2012 22:42:45 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=89#comment-105Hi Jess
Thank you for your interest in the event – I will be asking the speakers whether they will write an entry on our blog based on their speeches made at the event.
Gabrielle
]]>Comment on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in our Constitution: Three Perspectives by Jessie chenghttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/05/10/recognising-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-in-our-constitution-three-perspectives/comment-page-1/#comment-102
Mon, 21 May 2012 10:03:21 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=89#comment-102Hi,

I’m really interested in this event however I live in Sydney and will not be able to attend. What I was wondering is if the speeches made at the seminar will be accessible to the public after the event?

Thank you in advance,

Jess

]]>Comment on University of Adelaide Academics defend constitutionality of same-sex marriage before the Senate by Gabrielle Applebyhttps://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/2012/05/07/university-of-adelaide-academics-defend-constitutionality-of-same-sex-marriage-before-the-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-85
Fri, 11 May 2012 05:05:33 +0000http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/public-law-rc/?p=86#comment-85Absolutely – I think there are good analogies to be made with the aliens power and the marriage power. Both are legal concepts that the common law/Parliament historically defined prior to federation. It would make sense that the framers intended the Parliament to continue to be able to define these concepts after federation. A good analogy may also be made here with the trademarks power (s 51(xviii). Then of course the question becomes what are the ‘limits’ that the Constitution sets, and must these remain as intended back in 1901. For example, is one of those limits “a man and a woman”? This is why I still think it is necessary for the Court to come back to historical considerations and look at what the essential characteristics of the institution are and whether these can/have evolved. Could the parliament define the institution to be “between two people to the exclusion of all others”? Could the parliament define the institution to be “between any number of people to the exclusion of all others”? I think this is where the Court will consider the changes since 1901. There is certainly legislative developments to support the idea that same-sex relationships are to be treated equally with heterosexual relationships. There is nothing to this effect in relation to polygamous relationships.
]]>